I hope you are starting to see that the laws are already in place. Criminals ignore the laws.

Thanks for the info on the chicago-indiana gun smuggling. There are laws that make it illegal, but there is absolutely no way to actually enforce the laws. Right now there is no way to know who has guns, who they are selling them to, when they are doing it, where they are. It is Somalia out there.

If we don't want certain people to have guns - and we agree some people shouldn't - we have to have a way to make sure they don't get them. And when they do, we need to be able to take them away. I think a lot of gun rights people are throwing out the baby with the bathwater in their approach. It seems they agree the bad guys should not get them, but they oppose any means of solving the problem out of fear those same laws will be used to take their guns.

In the year 2010, for example, there were 73,000 denials, out of which there were only 13 guilty pleas. The government just doesn't make it a priority, for whatever reason.

I'm not familiar with the law. Is it illegal for people to apply for a gun and fail the background check? I think it is also important to know why people are not being prosecuted. It could be a caveat the NRA inserted where there is no obligation to inform police when a background check has failed. Not saying that is the case, but they have done their best to water down all gun laws.

And also, you shouldn't dismiss whether law-abiding citizens will comply with the law.

By definition, law-abiding citizens will abide by the law. I am sure there will be people who are not otherwise criminals that will ignore the law. Which is why it will take time to register all the guns. I think there needs to be a build up of trust so that lawful gun owners will understand it is not going to lead to a ban.

Penalties should exist, but start out low. As time goes on the penalties should become harsher.

In the year 2010, for example, there were 73,000 denials, out of which there were only 13 guilty pleas. The government just doesn't make it a priority, for whatever reason.

I'm not familiar with the law. Is it illegal for people to apply for a gun and fail the background check? I think it is also important to know why people are not being prosecuted. It could be a caveat the NRA inserted where there is no obligation to inform police when a background check has failed. Not saying that is the case, but they have done their best to water down all gun laws.

I'm not absolutely sure, but no, I don't think it's illegal to apply for a background check. Nor should it be, IMO. I've an aquaintance who was convicted of possession way back in the 80's, when he was young and dumb. He's since become an upstanding model citizen, married, steady job, homeowner, doesn't abuse any substances, and still is denied the right to own. I wouldn't appreciate seeing him brought up on any charges simply for following the law, and the law is that he must pass a background check to obtain a weapon.

Or would you rather he go to jail just for checking? I'm pretty sure I already know your answer to that, but these are the kinds of complications that we're all dealing with.

In the year 2010, for example, there were 73,000 denials, out of which there were only 13 guilty pleas. The government just doesn't make it a priority, for whatever reason.

I'm not familiar with the law. Is it illegal for people to apply for a gun and fail the background check?

When you fill out the form 4473 and declare that you are not a prohibited person in any way, you are required to swear that all of your answers are truthful. If they aren't, you are committing the federal crime of perjury, which is a felony. On the other hand, if you are a prohibited person, and say so truthfully on the form, that isn't illegal -- but then, of course, the gun dealer isn't going to sell you the gun.

Quote

I think it is also important to know why people are not being prosecuted.

It's more or less the same reason that a lot of other crimes don't get prosecuted: the government has limited resources and considers failed NICS checks to be a lower priority than most other things.

Quote

It could be a caveat the NRA inserted where there is no obligation to inform police when a background check has failed.

The background checks are performed by the FBI, which means that, by definition, law enforcement knows about any background check that results in a denial. (Or an approval, for that matter.) The NRA has nothing to do with it.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Just to clarify, I understand the NRA is not involved in background checks. However, they are heavily involved in influencing how laws are written. That was what I meant.

Right, I understand. The NRA has somewhat mixed feelings about background checks. They support them for licensed gun dealers performing gun sales and for other similar transactions, but they oppose them for things like a father passing away and willing his guns to his sons. One thing the NRA has been vocally upset about is the lack of prosecutions for people who fail the background checks. I find it pretty alarming as well; I would think any reasonable person would.

Quote

And thanks for the info.

Anytime.

If you're curious, by the way, this is the form you are required to complete for any firearms purchase:http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdfThis is only to meet the requirements under federal law. State and local laws sometimes add additional stuff on top of that -- for example, here in Maryland, you are required to sign a release allowing the state to examine your mental health records (if any), and if you're buying a handgun, you also have to declare that you haven't purchased a handgun within the past thirty days.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

On paper, perjury kinda seems irrelevant compared to everything else the FBI has to deal with. I can her NRA owned congressmen castigating the FBI for wasting time on tracking down perjury offenders when there are real criminals out there.

On paper, perjury kinda seems irrelevant compared to everything else the FBI has to deal with.

IMO, it depends on which category of prohibited person the declined applicant is. If it's someone who's been busted for smoking pot or who's been dishonorably discharged, that would probably be one thing. If it's someone with a violent felony conviction or a restraining order for domestic violence, that's quite another. In a case like that, I would say that the person should be prosecuted just to get them off the street, and to set an example.

Quote

I can her NRA owned congressmen castigating the FBI for wasting time on tracking down perjury offenders when there are real criminals out there.

The NRA is not cool with people trying to break gun laws or using guns to commit crime. The NRA was and is, for example, a very strong proponent of programs such as Project Exile. And, as I said before, the NRA is one of the voices yelling the loudest about the fact that no one is being prosecuted for failing a NICS check. Even the Brady Campaign doesn't talk about it.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Thanks for the info on the chicago-indiana gun smuggling. There are laws that make it illegal, but there is absolutely no way to actually enforce the laws. Right now there is no way to know who has guns, who they are selling them to, when they are doing it, where they are. It is Somalia out there.

I don't understand your logic. Don't think I'm being condescending in explaining it further. Right now there is a database of who has purchased guns legally in Illinois and Indiana. An Illinois resident must have a FOID card in order to buy firearms or ammunition. That law applies to private transactions, as well as purchases from dealers. Therefore, there is a trail of transactions for guns that were originally purchased from an in-state dealer, or transferred in from out-of-state. Sellers are required, by law, to keep a record of FOID transactions for ten years.

As for enforcing the law - if you passed a law that says all gun owners must register their weapons - how are you going to enforce that? Folks who don't register their guns would then be breaking the law.

See, in my opinion laws are in place already. Enforcement is problematic, just like enforcement of drug laws. Enforcement causes as many, and maybe more, problems than it creates.

I'm out of the loop on the politics you bring up, PD...if the NRA are yelling for this to be done, who is pushing back the other way - politically?

Nobody. There are basically three camps regarding this: the people who are complaining about it[1], the people who aren't talking about it[2], and the people who are making excuses -- or trying to explain, I guess, depending on your viewpoint -- for why it isn't happening[3]. I'm not aware of anyone who is opining that this is the way things actually should be. I doubt many people feel that way, and even if they did, I don't think it's the kind of viewpoint that most people would want to air publicly because it wouldn't exactly be popular.

The NRA is not cool with people trying to break gun laws or using guns to commit crime.

Not trying to use hyperbole here, but I do not see how that fits with their obstruction of background checks and every other effort to curb gum violence. Even if they strenuously agree with project exile, is there not a big, fat loophole with gun shows, the internets and person-to-person sales? And right now, it is very difficult to track down straw sales, correct? Their shouting about lack of enforcement is not credible to me.

They may be supportive of people following the law, but they are also doing their best to eliminate the law, or failing that, castrate it.

As for enforcing the law - if you passed a law that says all gun owners must register their weapons - how are you going to enforce that? Folks who don't register their guns would then be breaking the law.

I think you have to make the penalties for being caught with an unregistered weapon steep. I think you have to make the penalties for illegally transferring a gun steep. I think you have to spot check at hunting season and at shooting ranges. Every time someone buys ammo, check to see if it matches the guns they have registered. If not, they have some explaining to do. Or, a search warrant gets written out.

I think it will take time, but if you fix some of the problems highlighted in the links above, eventually you'll be able to get your arms around it. This is a problem that has been allowed to grow to unmanageable proportions. It is like the Blob. It will not be solved with one law or in one day.

See, in my opinion laws are in place already. Enforcement is problematic, just like enforcement of drug laws. Enforcement causes as many, and maybe more, problems than it creates.

Come on, Odin. You cannot just sit back and throw darts are all the ideas to fix the problem. That is lazy. You are shrugging your shoulders and giving up on keeping guns away from the bad guys and idiots.

In the year 2010, for example, there were 73,000 denials, out of which there were only 13 guilty pleas. The government just doesn't make it a priority, for whatever reason.

I'm not familiar with the law. Is it illegal for people to apply for a gun and fail the background check? I think it is also important to know why people are not being prosecuted. It could be a caveat the NRA inserted where there is no obligation to inform police when a background check has failed. Not saying that is the case, but they have done their best to water down all gun laws.

It could also be that in the budgeting affairs of the government, there are too many other things that need to be funded and this is considered a low priority, especially in light of the fact of the political hay made for prosecuting people. The gun lobby specifically, and the conservative right in general, are very good at painting the opposite picture of what is truly happening.

Logged

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

The NRA is not cool with people trying to break gun laws or using guns to commit crime.

Not trying to use hyperbole here, but I do not see how that fits with their obstruction of background checks and every other effort to curb gum violence. Even if they strenuously agree with project exile, is there not a big, fat loophole with gun shows, the internets and person-to-person sales? And right now, it is very difficult to track down straw sales, correct? Their shouting about lack of enforcement is not credible to me.

They may be supportive of people following the law, but they are also doing their best to eliminate the law, or failing that, castrate it.

It's like crying out for the punishment of pot smokers all the while working to decriminalize marijuana. It's a smoke screen, if you will. (No pun intended)

The more laws that exist for the purchase and sale of guns, the fewer guns that will be sold. It's math.

Logged

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Thanks. I don't take it as condescending. I think I am missing something. I thought having a database was illegal? Seriously. ATF isn't even allowed to digitize their records. So who has the database?

I'll get back to you on this.

Quote

So how are they getting the weapons and ammo?

Illegally. Another law won't stop that.

Quote

But there is no way to know if the private transactors are doing that or not.

But there is a law in place. Isn't that what you want, more laws?

Quote

I think you have to make the penalties for being caught with an unregistered weapon steep. I think you have to make the penalties for illegally transferring a gun steep. I think you have to spot check at hunting season and at shooting ranges. Every time someone buys ammo, check to see if it matches the guns they have registered. If not, they have some explaining to do. Or, a search warrant gets written out.

Let's just throw out the 4th Amendment, along with the 2nd Amendment. Is that what you are saying? Registration is the issue. I believe that registration flies in the face of the 2nd Amendment. I believe that registration has been prohibited by court cases that interpreted the 2nd Amendment. I'll also get back to you on that last issue.

Quote

Come on, Odin. You cannot just sit back and throw darts are all the ideas to fix the problem. That is lazy. You are shrugging your shoulders and giving up on keeping guns away from the bad guys and idiots.

We already have laws for that. Today, for all practical purposes, 50 million households holding 250 million guns were not responsible for one gun-related death. At least in a statistically significant sense.

I think we all need to agree that this thread has run its course. Let's get back to bashing god and allah, shall we?

Registration is the issue. I believe that registration flies in the face of the 2nd Amendment.

Odin, I know you want to be done with this thread, but before you run will you please explain how having to register a firearm infringes on your right to possess it? It seems to me that the verbage "a well regulated militia" in the 2nd Amendment would support registration.

Logged

Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

Registration is the issue. I believe that registration flies in the face of the 2nd Amendment.

Odin, I know you want to be done with this thread, but before you run will you please explain how having to register a firearm infringes on your right to possess it? It seems to me that the verbage "a well regulated militia" in the 2nd Amendment would support registration.

From a thread found during a google search:

The question is, are there any Constitutional restrictions on a federal gun registry? Well let's reason this out.

The 4th Amendament:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

A better question would be "what gives the federal government the right to regulate any 'affects' [sic?] of the people?"

SEC. 102. FINDINGS. Congress finds the following: (1) Congress supports, respects, and defends the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.(2) Congress supports and reaffirms the existing prohibition on a national firearms registry.

There have been suggestions in this thread that the US should require firearms owners to register their firearms, obtain insurance on them, among other "restrictions." One poster is a proponent of repealing the 2nd Amendment. (I didn't try to find the post, it's a long, tiresome thread.)

Hell, the Democratic-controlled Senate can't even muster 60 votes to pass a watered-down version of a law to close the "gun show loophole" (universal background checks). How in the world can anyone believe that support exists for repealing an amendment that's been in place since Virginia became the 11th state to ratify the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791? How can anyone really believe that the voters in 50 million American households are in favor of registration of their firearms.

When discussing the "high rate" of gun homicides in the US, here is an often overlooked statistic. Look at the graph at the top of this article. Blacks have a ten-fold higher gun homicide rate than whites. Also, look at rates in urban areas.

Odin, I know you want to be done with this thread, but before you run will you please explain how having to register a firearm infringes on your right to possess it? It seems to me that the verbage "a well regulated militia" in the 2nd Amendment would support registration.

I want to be done with this thread as well, but just wanted to address this part. GOA has a section on right to carry where, in part, your question is addressed.

Quote

6. CCW licenses register gun owners -- and licensing can lead to confiscation of firearms

a. Step One: Registration -- In the mid-1960s officials in New York City began registering long guns. They promised they would never use such lists to take away firearms from honest citizens. But in 1991, the city banned (and soon began confiscating) many of those very guns. (18)b. Step Two: Confiscation -- In 1992, a New York city paper reported that, "Police raided the home of a Staten Island man who refused to comply with the city's tough ban on assault weapons, and seized an arsenal of firearms. . . . Spot checks are planned [for other homes]." (19)c. Foreign Countries -- Gun registration has led to confiscation in several countries, including Greece, Ireland, Jamaica and Bermuda. (20) And in an exhaustive study on this subject, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership has researched and translated several gun control laws from foreign countries. Their publication, Lethal Laws: "Gun Control" is the Key to Genocide, documents how gun control (and confiscation) has preceded the slaughter and genocide of millions of people in Turkey, the Soviet Union, Germany, China, Cambodia and others. (21)

The Supreme Court held in Lamont v. Postmaster General (1965) that the First Amendment prevents the government from registering purchasers of magazines and newspapers -- even if such material is "communist political propaganda." (22)

Lamont v. Postmaster General is a very interesting and important case, by the way, one which is worth being familiar with even outside of the context of the gun control debate. SCOTUS held, among other things, that requiring anyone to register with the federal government to obtain certain types of reading materials would have a "chilling effect" on the people's First Amendment right to read whatever they want to. The government tried to argue that they were not preventing anyone from reading anything and would never do so, they were just keeping lists of people who were reading communist publications. SCOTUS held that even doing that much was a First Amendment infringement inasmuch as it would probably frighten some people into not reading those publications.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

The federal government has the power to regulate commerce. Any transaction of value between individuals or other legal entities (corporations) is subject to regulation by the federal government as long as it is an issue of interstate or foreign trade.

If I pay the kid down the street to mow my lawn, that transaction between individuals is not interstate trade (unless down the street means the kid lives in another state). No goods were sold, the kid is an independent contractor as I am not offering anyone regular employment. If I buy a mower from Lowe's, that is interstate trade. The mower is a mobile item and likely was not produced in the state in which I live and has further government restrictions placed upon it for other reasons (safety, environmental protection).

The purchase and sale of firearms is a transaction of value for goods that can and easily do cross state lines. Ergo, it qualifies as interstate trade. It can be regulated by the federal government.

Logged

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Furthermore, I would like to know why I cannot purchase and possess, and yes, even sell, hand grenades. They are hand-held and are certainly projected with my arm by use of a pin and firing mechanism. I see no difference whatsoever.

Logged

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

The federal government has the power to regulate commerce. Any transaction of value between individuals or other legal entities (corporations) is subject to regulation by the federal government as long as it is an issue of interstate or foreign trade.

If I pay the kid down the street to mow my lawn, that transaction between individuals is not interstate trade (unless down the street means the kid lives in another state). No goods were sold, the kid is an independent contractor as I am not offering anyone regular employment. If I buy a mower from Lowe's, that is interstate trade. The mower is a mobile item and likely was not produced in the state in which I live and has further government restrictions placed upon it for other reasons (safety, environmental protection).

The purchase and sale of firearms is a transaction of value for goods that can and easily do cross state lines. Ergo, it qualifies as interstate trade. It can be regulated by the federal government.

The issue of the Commerce Clause and the 2nd Amendment is in no way settled, based on my searches. Your analysis is not exhaustive - just do a little searching.

As to the question about the grenade - court cases ruled that sawed-off shotguns were not protected "arms" under the 2nd Amendment. Regulation of grenades, bazookas, tanks, and similar weapons seems to be covered.

I don't think it is fair to conclude that registration leads to confiscation, but it would obviously make certain weapons easier to locate in the event they become banned. There are plenty of guns (I presume the majority, but it is difficult to know for sure) that are presently registered, as they have been for years, without incident.

There seems to be a whole lot of fear and worry on the pro-gun side over stuff that could happen, and it makes them resistant to even basic common sense proposals, such as universal background checks. It seems to me that if a background check is required for any gun transaction, it ought to be required for all gun transactions. I truly do not understand wtf is so threatening about that, and why the measure keeps failing to pass. I honestly would like to know the rationale behind it if any of you care to try and explain.

Logged

Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

I don't think it is fair to conclude that registration leads to confiscation, but it would obviously make certain weapons easier to locate in the event they become banned.

Read this out loud to yourself over and over until it sinks in. Fair? Locate?

Watch this warning from Canada.

Quote

There are plenty of guns (I presume the majority, but it is difficult to know for sure) that are presently registered, as they have been for years, without incident.

There is no registry of guns in the US, except for certain restricted guns, like fully-automatic weapons.

Quote

There seems to be a whole lot of fear and worry on the pro-gun side over stuff that could happen, and it makes them resistant to even basic common sense proposals, such as universal background checks. It seems to me that if a background check is required for any gun transaction, it ought to be required for all gun transactions. I truly do not understand wtf is so threatening about that, and why the measure keeps failing to pass. I honestly would like to know the rationale behind it if any of you care to try and explain.

Just watch the video a few more times, and then you'll understand. If you don't understand, then you never will.